Hoi,
The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
considerably.

The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
the sum of all knowledge.

Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
Thanks,
      GerardM
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lila,
>
> The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
> words in the application itself.
>
> I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
> questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> willful lies that came to mind for me.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Quotes:
>
> "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus> on the
> WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&oldid=15302201
>
> "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
> to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> application, August 2015
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> > memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would
> mean
> > > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> > grant
> > > > of
> > > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
> agree
> > > to
> > > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
> > and
> > > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > > informed
> > > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > > situation
> > > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
> > if
> > > > they
> > > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case,
> > we're
> > > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10
> > million?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
> > consulted
> > > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we
> > don't
> > > > know
> > > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
> granted.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > > $100,000
> > > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > > possibly
> > > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
> > value
> > > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > > seems a
> > > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > *advised
> > > > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
> contemplated
> > or
> > > > > > prepared.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
> > > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
> > future
> > > > and
> > > > > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
> support a
> > > > large
> > > > > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> > > > closely
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and
> > 30%
> > > > of
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > > > > organization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and
> I
> > am
> > > > > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
> place.
> > > I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > > > > acceptance
> > > > > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
> > > they
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> > > > > applications
> > > > > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I
> > don't
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > > > > > notification,
> > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not
> > get
> > > > us
> > > > > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
> > afraid
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened
> > that
> > > > > were
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
> > > > people
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
> > tool
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
> > > that
> > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was
> > not
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
> solve
> > > > > this...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
> forward.
> > > > What
> > > > > I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
> > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
> > Pine
> > > > for
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
> and
> > > > Siko
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >       GerardM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> > > wikipe...@zog.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gerard,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
> > > complaining
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > sand
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
> here
> > --
> > > > oh
> > > > > > > look!
> > > > > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
> > anything.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michel
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I
> > take
> > > > it
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough
> > for
> > > > you?
> > > > > > > When
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
> > > move
> > > > us
> > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
> hope
> > to
> > > > > > > achieve?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
> negativity
> > > and
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
> > role,
> > > > she
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
> You
> > > may
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > and that is ok.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >        GerardM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
> wiki.p...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides
> > the
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
> project,
> > > why
> > > > is
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > mentioned in
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
> > $250k
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason
> > for
> > > > > > opacity
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
> > > explore
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
> > channel
> > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
> exercise
> > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
> in
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > direction,
> > > > > > > > > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
> > > about
> > > > > WMF
> > > > > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
> you
> > > plan
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
> talking
> > > > about
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
> > > difficult
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
> > > > wounds.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the
> > WMF
> > > > > staff
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
> > more
> > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
> lost
> > > > > control
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
> > is.
> > > > > > > > Personally,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
> > > > relationships
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
> > > > capable
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > restoring
> > > > > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
> > execution,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > goodwill.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
> > happen.
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pine
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> > > > > > > > dar...@alk.edu.pl
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> sarahsv.w...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ​T​
> > > > > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
> > engine
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
> > Wikipedia
> > > > [is
> > > > > > a]
> > > > > > > > > system
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
> information
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Internet.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
> > potentially
> > > be
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > open/public
> > > > > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal,
> > and
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
> > commercial
> > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
> > improving
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > searches
> > > > > > > > > > > > across projects.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
> was
> > > not
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Board
> > > > > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
> > > build
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
> > > budget
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > 2015–2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you
> > point
> > > us
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > board
> > > > > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
> elude
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
> may
> > > > pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good night!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dj
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lila Tretikov
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to